Chen Show Mao admits his random bullshit is stupid

[wMulew]

In response, Mr Chen said he is proposing that Singapore run a ‘deficit’ to fund additional social spending,but to “look at the numbers both on the revenue side and how much we hope to make in terms of investments to come to a solution.”

http://temasektimes.wordpress.com/

Yes let's start becoming the next Greece

 

[callmebad]

Well, most of us are highly concerned about our medical bills if we suffer from some chronic illness. As compared to other Asian countries such as Hong Kong, Taiwan, the government has under-spent (even though it just raises it) our medical expenditure. I think this kind of social spending is very important due to our aging population. I find it every sickening to hear ministers arguing and justifying about their world-record high pay yet sting on such essential spending. I think more government spending to alleviate our medical burden financially is not bullshit.

 

[Ramseth]

PAP has more than once equated Singapore days reserves to natural resources of others with actual natural mineral resources. That is, Singapore has no natural mineral resources so must build up financial reserves for rainy days. Then when rain came, it's your business to survive through the rain and storm. They even cut your wages and CPF. Then when flood came, they said it's only once in a while (50 years as they claimed) and let's move on, save the reserves. When citizens are too old and frail to work laborious manual jobs, they're told to wash dishes or wash toilets. When then are the reserves used for? For their own multi-million dollar salaries, i.e. the famous quote, I manage a pool of funds and investments worth several hundred billions, a few millions is nothing but a tiny fraction worth it all. So they're all "legally" not corrupt but "proportionately" remunerated according to portfolio.

 

[HTOLAS]

There is something very fishy about the sentence structure of the quote by threadstarter.

 

[Ramseth]

There is something very fishy about the sentence structure of the quote by threadstarter.

It's of course fishy in accounting terms. Run a deficit means revenues not meeting expenses. Surpluses are written in reserves. If say, over past 40 years we accumulated S$400 billion, but this year we should need to spend S$4 billion with S$2 billion revenues, there'd be a technical deficit and drawdown. An analogy with common folk savings, who the hell saves money and won't want to spend it even when impoverished and starving? Then, what the hell is saving money for? CSM is absolutely right.

 

[HTOLAS]

That's not what I meant. Don't you think the following sentence would make more grammatical sense if it read "... Mr Chen said he is (sic) NOT proposing..., but...." Was there some creative editing in Temasek Times and threadstarter's quote?

In response, Mr Chen said he is proposing that Singapore run a ‘deficit’ to fund additional social spending,but to “look at the numbers both on the revenue side and how much we hope to make in terms of investments to come to a solution.”

It's of course fishy in accounting terms. Run a deficit means revenues not meeting expenses. Surpluses are written in reserves. If say, over past 40 years we accumulated S$400 billion, but this year we should need to spend S$4 billion with S$2 billion revenues, there'd be a technical deficit and drawdown. An analogy with common folk savings, who the hell saves money and won't want to spend it even when impoverished and starving? Then, what the hell is saving money for? CSM is absolutely right.

 

[Ramseth]

That's not what I meant. Don't you think the following sentence would make more grammatical sense if it read "... Mr Chen said he is (sic) NOT proposing..., but...." Was there some creative editing in Temasek Times and threadstarter's quote?

In response, Mr Chen said he is proposing that Singapore run a ‘deficit’ to fund additional social spending,but to “look at the numbers both on the revenue side and how much we hope to make in terms of investments to come to a solution.”

There's nothing wrong with running deficit. Life and politics shouldn't be about accumulating surpluses as trophies and not use it. I reiterate my example. Say, we've accumulated S$400 billion of surpluses through the decades and written into reserves. This year we have S$2 billion revenues but need S$4 billion expenses. What would you do if you're PM or FM? Or to bring the example a further step on, oh we discovered oilfields worth as much as Brunei, but sorry you starve is your business, please see your MP or CDC mayor if you're bordering on being starved to death and before being starved to death we have to sell the oil for more reserves for the future.

 

[Perspective]

I have to say that Chen Show Mao should specify more context on the matter. Running a deficit is fine if it is say one of 5-10 years, but running a deficit every year means going in the red, then go into negative.

 

[Ramseth]

I have to say that Chen Show Mao should specify more context on the matter. Running a deficit is fine if it is say one of 5-10 years, but running a deficit every year means going in the red, then go into negative.

I won't blame you and most laymen for misunderstanding, biut no excuse for GMS the economist. There's a difference between equity and bond, balance sheet and P&L statement.

 

[Char_Azn]

I have to say that Chen Show Mao should specify more context on the matter. Running a deficit is fine if it is say one of 5-10 years, but running a deficit every year means going in the red, then go into negative.

Once U start giving, U cannot take it back. And from there U can only continue to give more not less. The western powers are struggling with that right now. The idea of having a deficit is to be able to make the money back during good times. That is usually not the case when you apply it to a democratic country where the one who promise more, wins

 

[mesmerised]

It is silly for any opposition member and with no experience in running the govt to argue the case for a deficit budget!

CSM should instead propose a rebalancing of the budget just like what SDP had attempted to do (albeit SDPs report was highly amateurish!). The Opp members should query about the expenditures incurred by the various Ministries in the last FY and scrutinise what are the major expenditures for which they are seeking funding this year.

Last year was a bumper year for many ministries. And it is likely that they will all try to spend every dollar before 31 Mar so that they can justify asking for more money for the following FY.

The only time the Ministries tried to tighten their belt was in 2004 when SARS hit and struck fear that this may be a prolonged thingy. Since then, all the Ministries have been on a "spend,spend spend" mode.

All it takes is for WP to scrutinise one or two major purchases/procurements by the "big" Ministries...am sure there will be lots of fats within each item. Skim some of these and you can easily get your 1-2 billion to fund the inadequacies in other areas.

 

[blueyepea]

Yes let's start becoming the next Greece

Hi Dr Joseph Ong, hows your police case coming along?

 

[Fook Seng]

Somehow a budget that started out as a deficit became a surplus at the end of the year in the past. In Singapore, something budgeted need not be spent.

 

[mesmerised]

Somehow a budget that started out as a deficit became a surplus at the end of the year in the past. In Singapore, something budgeted need not be spent.

What is budgeted often is spent. The surplus is due to revenue that is deliberately projected to be low/"conservative" and at the end of the FY, "miraculously" exceeding expectations...and this has been going on for last 30 years!

Just watch...next year, we will end up with a surplus again!

 

[kingrant]

Good points!

It is silly for any opposition member and with no experience in running the govt to argue the case for a deficit budget!

CSM should instead propose a rebalancing of the budget just like what SDP had attempted to do (albeit SDPs report was highly amateurish!). The Opp members should query about the expenditures incurred by the various Ministries in the last FY and scrutinise what are the major expenditures for which they are seeking funding this year.

Last year was a bumper year for many ministries. And it is likely that they will all try to spend every dollar before 31 Mar so that they can justify asking for more money for the following FY.

The only time the Ministries tried to tighten their belt was in 2004 when SARS hit and struck fear that this may be a prolonged thingy. Since then, all the Ministries have been on a "spend,spend spend" mode.

All it takes is for WP to scrutinise one or two major purchases/procurements by the "big" Ministries...am sure there will be lots of fats within each item. Skim some of these and you can easily get your 1-2 billion to fund the inadequacies in other areas.

 

[jixiaolan]

Nothing wrong with what CSM said except he could not justify with reasoning as it is possible to run a budget deficit without "hurting" the reserve as proceed made from sale of state lands will go directly to the reserve.

 

[Bigfuck]

Nothing wrong with what CSM said except he could not justify with reasoning as it is possible to run a budget deficit without "hurting" the reserve as proceed made from sale of state lands will go directly to the reserve.

Our MPs fail math wan lah. Deficit spending in itself is not bad. It depends on whether money spent has multiplier effect or returns monetarily. Surplus budget usually means private sector denied consumption and investment chances - that is bad as it is taking my money for govt. to spend. Balanced just gives the illusion that things are optimal if viewed by itself. What is clear is there are problems with the current economic activities among Singaporeans. You can technically deficit spend to grow Singapore - payback comes back as a bitch. See Europe which borrowed into the future to enjoy now. Govt. that believes surplus budget and they are best at investments should shut their mouth about asking SMEs and entereprises to be entrepreneur as they have stolen the much needed money to invest for the private sector.

 

[djent]

Vikram Nair compares Chen Show Mao’s proposals to a Nigerian scam

by: Ng E-Jay~

No, you did not read the headline wrongly. When WP MP Chen Show Mao proposed in Parliament that the 2012 Budget should do more for vulnerable groups, PAP MP Vikram Nair attacked Mr Chen’s proposals as being akin to a Nigerian money scam.

Let’s review Mr Chen’s Budget speech, and see if this attack is justified, if indeed Mr Chen had proposed ripping off the nation like a Nigerian scam artiste. My information comes from WP’s website: MP Chen Show Mao’s Budget 2012 Speech.

Firstly, Mr Chen said that WP was glad that the government had heeded the call of many Singaporeans for more inclusive growth, but noted that the elderly, the disabled and the poor in need of social security should not be seen as social problems as the Budget puts it.

Secondly, Mr Chen said that investing in our elderly, the disabled, the poor and other needy Singaporeans will reward society with the economic, social and cultural contributions they are able to make with assistance.

Thirdly, Mr Chen said that the government should also seek out such investment opportunities to realize social returns not just in the area of social security, but also in the areas of public housing, healthcare, education, and infrastructure and the environment.

Fourthly, Mr Chen said that this argues for investing in social safety nets that keep up with the costs of living, because when some Singaporeans trip and fall behind, we should help them get back up and stay in the game.

So let me summarize the basic idea behind Mr Chen Show Mao’s message: the government should invest in providing for the needy so that the needy can in turn make greater contributions to society than would have been possible had they received no help.

Apparently, according to Mr Vikram Nair, this is akin to scamming the whole country.

In Parliament, Mr Nair accused Chen and other opposition MPs of not acknowledging the government’s efforts in helping vulnerable groups. This is dishonest, to say the least, because both Chen as well as Aljunied MP Low Thia Khiang had both explicitly praised the government for devising a more inclusive Budget, and none had ever suggested that the government was neglecting the needy.

In fact, Mr Low Thia Khiang had described this year’s Budget as “special”, saying that the government had taken a big step towards a “first world social safety net”. Mr Low had also praised the Budget for its greater focus on helping the less well-off, such as low-wage workers and the elderly, even if it meant slower growth.

Mr Nair accused Mr Chen of not having a plan as to how to pay for the extra spending he desired. He also decried the vagueness in Chen’s assertion that investing in human capital would yield returns, saying that Chen should explain with more details “as to how this self-funding investment works”.

He then likening Chen’s proposals to a Nigerian scam e-mail where recipients are urged to transfer funds in return for a pay-off later. Mr Nair even went so far as to say that Chen had promised something “even better, because you don’t have to put in any money at all, and you get more than money in return”.

It is truly a sad day for Singapore when an MP can claim in Parliament that increased social spending is like scamming the nation, simply because the proposer had not explicitly mentioned from where the funds would be drawn, and exactly what returns could be expected.

My message to the ruling PAP is that when you invest in the needy and the under-privileged, you don’t quantify potential returns the same way as you grade students on a bell curve or rank civil servants using KPIs. You should know from the start that it is morally the right thing to do, regardless of what the potential returns are.

Human capital and the worth of each human being cannot be quantified. When we invest in our young, in continued education for the working population, in upgrading skills of blue collar workers, and in the poor and needy, we do not calculate what ROI we are getting. We expect our investment to first make moral sense, before they make political or economic sense.

The nation is scammed not when investments in the needy are increased. The nation is instead scammed when budget surpluses are channeled into some black box known as “external reserves” and invested in opaque instruments without accounting to the electorate, and where billion-dollar losses are not only poorly disclosed by also casually dismissed as market volatility.

Our human resource is the only natural resource we have. Investing in them is not a scam. It is in fact one of the highest moral callings of any government in power.

http://www.sgpolitics.net/?p=7384

 

[OverTheCounter]

I won't blame you and most laymen for misunderstanding, biut no excuse for GMS the economist. There's a difference between equity and bond, balance sheet and P&L statement.

I'm afraid you're the one who doesn't comprehend. The difference is between the balance sheet and income statement.

 

[TwitSeng]

http://temasektimes.wordpress.com/

Yes let's start becoming the next Greece

is the link you showed as a trustable source of information?